1
2
3
4
5
6
7
SPENCER HOSIE (CA Bar No. 101777)
shosie@hosielaw.com
GEORGE F. BISHOP (CA Bar No. 89205)
gbishop@hosielaw.com
DIANE S. RICE (CA Bar No. 118303)
drice@hosielaw.com
WILLIAM P. NELSON (CA Bar No. 196091)
wnelson@hosielaw.com
HOSIE RICE LLP
600 Montgomery Street, 34th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
(415) 247-6000 Tel.
(415) 247-6001 Fax
8
Attorneys for Plaintiff
9 MASTEROBJECTS, INC.
10
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
12
13
14
MASTEROBJECTS, INC.,
Case No. C 11-2402 EMC
15
16
17
Plaintiff,
v.
MICROSOFT CORP.,
18
19
Defendant.
PLAINTIFF MASTEROBJECTS, INC.’S
AMENDED ANSWER TO DEFENDANT
MICROSOFT CORP.’S
COUNTERCLAIMS
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS
CASE NO. C 11-2402 EMC
1
ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS
2
MasterObjects, Inc. (“MasterObjects”), Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant, hereby
3 states its Answer to the Counterclaims alleged by Microsoft Corp. (“Microsoft”), demands a
4 jury trial, and alleges as follows:
5
6
1.
Answering the allegations in Paragraph 1, MasterObjects admits the
allegations in the responses to paragraphs 1-41 incorporated by reference by Microsoft only
7
8
to the extent said responses consist of unqualified admissions of the allegations in
9 MasterObjects’ complaint; in all other respects, MasterObjects denies each and every
10 allegation in Microsoft’s responses and this paragraph.
11
12
13
PARTIES
2.
Answering the allegations in Paragraph 2, MasterObjects admits said
allegations.
14
3.
Answering the allegations in Paragraph 3, MasterObjects admits that it is a
15
16
corporation, admits that its principal place of business is now Maarssen, Netherlands, and
17 denies each and every remaining allegation in said paragraph.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
18
19
4.
Answering the allegations in Paragraph 4, MasterObjects admits that subject
20 matter jurisdiction exists for Microsoft’s “Counterclaim I” and “Counterclaim II.”
21
MasterObjects lacks knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny each and every
22
allegation remaining in said paragraph, and on that basis denies each and every allegation
23
remaining in said paragraph.
24
25
5.
Answering the allegations in Paragraph 5, MasterObjects admits said
26 allegations.
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS
1
CASE NO. C 11-2402 EMC
1
6.
Answering the allegations in Paragraph 6, MasterObjects admits said
2 allegations.
3
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
4
United States Patent No. 5,805,911
5
6
7.
Answering the allegations in Paragraph 7, MasterObjects lacks knowledge or
information sufficient to admit or deny said allegations, and on that basis denies each and
7
8
9
every allegation set forth in said paragraph.
8.
Answering the allegations in Paragraph 8, MasterObjects lacks knowledge or
10 information sufficient to admit or deny said allegations, and on that basis denies each and
11 every allegation set forth in said paragraph.
12
13
9.
Answering the allegations in Paragraph 9, MasterObjects lacks knowledge or
information sufficient to admit or deny said allegations, and on that basis denies each and
14
every allegation set forth in said paragraph.
15
MasterObjects’ [Allegedly] Infringing Products and Services
16
17
10.
Answering the allegations in Paragraph 10, MasterObjects admits said
18 allegations.
19
11.
Answering the allegations in Paragraph 11, MasterObjects admits that
20 QuestFields includes functionality that can be used in connection with suggesting
21
completions and additional related terms to refine a search query, and lacking knowledge or
22
information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations denies each and every
23
remaining allegation set forth in said paragraph.
24
25
12.
Answering the allegations in Paragraph 12, MasterObjects admits that it
26 licenses QuestFields to customers, that customers can modify their webpages to include
27 QuestFields-powered search fields, and that QuestFields can be used in connection with
28
PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS
2
CASE NO. C 11-2402 EMC
1
suggesting completions and additional related terms to refine a search query, and lacking
2 knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations denies each
3 and every remaining allegation set forth in said paragraph.
4
5
6
13.
Answering the allegations in Paragraph 13, MasterObjects admits that it
licenses QuestFields to customers for mobile use, that customers can modify their webpages
to include QuestFields-powered search fields, and that QuestFields can be used in connection
7
8
with suggesting completions and additional related terms to refine a search query, and
9 lacking knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations
10 denies each and every remaining allegation set forth in said paragraph.
11
14.
Answering the allegations in Paragraph 14, MasterObjects admits that
12 MasterObjects sells an implementation of QuestFields called ProductFinder, that
13
ProductFinder enables customers to search for products in a database, that users may start
14
typing the first characters of a word in a product name to begin a query, that the QuestField
15
16
Server may communicate with a product database and show the first matches while the user
17 is typing, that a ProductFinder QuestField can be used in connection with a product database
18 to show product names and other metadata that is available in the database, and that users can
19 submit a value found, and that users can submit values in an input field in web applications,
20 and lacking knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations
21
denies each and every remaining allegation set forth in said paragraph.
22
15.
Answering the allegations in Paragraph 15, MasterObjects admits said
23
allegations.
24
25
16.
Answering the allegations in Paragraph 16, MasterObjects sells an
26 implementation of QuestFields called PeopleFinder QuestField, that PeopleFinder enables
27 customers to search for people information in connection with a corporate directory or a
28
PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS
3
CASE NO. C 11-2402 EMC
1
people database, that PeopleFinder may be delivered with examples of configurations of
2 content channels that can enable the return of people information, and that PeopleFinder can
3 display information in a dropdown list in various ways, and lacking knowledge or
4 information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations denies each and every
5
remaining allegation set forth in said paragraph.
6
COUNTERCLAIM I:
7
DECLARATORY RELIEF REGARDING NON-INFRIGEMENT
8
9
17.
Answering the allegations in Paragraph 17, MasterObjects restates and
10 realleges its answer to Paragraphs 1 through 16 above as if set forth fully herein.
11
18.
Answering the allegations in Paragraph 18, MasterObjects admits said
12 allegations.
13
19.
Answering the allegations in Paragraph 19, MasterObjects admits that
14
Microsoft requests declaratory relief, but denies that Microsoft is entitled to relief and denies
15
16
each and every allegation remaining in said paragraph.
17
COUNTERCLAIM II:
18
DECLARATORY RELIEF REGARDING INVALIDITY
19
20.
Answering the allegations in Paragraph 20, MasterObjects restates and
20 realleges its answer to Paragraphs 1 through 19 above as if set forth fully herein.
21
21.
Answering the allegations in Paragraph 21, MasterObjects admits said
22
allegations.
23
22.
Answering the allegations in Paragraph 22, MasterObjects admits that
24
25 Microsoft requests declaratory relief, but denies that Microsoft is entitled to relief and denies
26 each and every allegation remaining in said paragraph.
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS
4
CASE NO. C 11-2402 EMC
1
COUNTERCLAIM III:
2
INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘911 PATENT
3
23.
Answering the allegations in Paragraph 23, MasterObjects restates and
4 realleges its answer to Paragraphs 1 through 22 above as if set forth fully herein.
5
6
24.
Answering the allegations in Paragraph 24, MasterObjects denies each and
every allegation set forth in said paragraph.
7
8
25.
Answering the allegations in Paragraph 25, MasterObjects denies each and
9 every allegation set forth in said paragraph.
10
26.
Answering the allegations in Paragraph 26, MasterObjects denies each and
11 every allegation set forth in said paragraph.
12
13
27.
Answering the allegations in Paragraph 27, MasterObjects denies each and
every allegation set forth in said paragraph.
14
EXCEPTIONAL CASE
15
16
28.
Answering the allegations in Paragraph 28, MasterObjects denies each and
17 every allegation set forth in said paragraph.
18
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
19
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20
(Non-Infringement)
21
29.
MasterObjects does not infringe and has not infringed (either directly,
22
23
contributorily or by inducement) any claim of the ’911 patent.
24
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25
(Invalidity)
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS
5
CASE NO. C 11-2402 EMC
30.
1
One or more asserted claims of the ’911 patent are invalid because they fail to
2 comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., including, without limitation,
3 sections 101, 102, 103 and 112.
4
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
5
(Equitable Defenses - Laches)
6
31.
Microsoft’s claims are barred, in whole or in part by the equitable doctrine of
7
8
laches.
9
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10
(Equitable Defenses - Estoppel)
11
32.
Microsoft’s claims are barred, in whole or in part by the equitable doctrines
12 of estoppel and/or waiver.
13
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14
(Prosecution History Estoppel)
15
33.
16
Microsoft’s claims are barred by the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel
17 based on statements, representations and admissions made during prosecution of the patent
18 application resulting in the ’911 patent.
19
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20
(Statutory Damages Limitations)
21
34.
Microsoft’s claim for damages is statutorily limited by 35 U.S.C. § 286 and/or
22
23
§ 287.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24
(Government Sales)
25
26
35.
Microsoft’s remedies are limited under 28 U.S.C. § 1498.
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS
6
CASE NO. C 11-2402 EMC
1
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2
(No Injunctive Relief)
3
36.
Microsoft’s claim for injunctive relief is barred because there exists an
4 adequate remedy at law and Microsoft’s claims otherwise fail to meet the requirements for
5
such relief.
6
TENTH DEFENSE
7
(No Standing)
8
9
37.
Microsoft does not have standing to bring an action for infringement of the
10 ’911 patent under the United States patent laws.
11
ELEVENTH DEFENSE
12
(Unclean Hands)
13
38.
Some or all of Microsoft’s claims for relief are barred and unenforceable, in
14
whole or in part, under the doctrine of unclean hands.
15
TWELFTH DEFENSE
16
(Reverse Doctrine of Equivalents)
17
18
39.
Microsoft’s accused methods and/or systems operate and/or are configured in
19 ways substantially different in principle from the way the invention described in the ’911
20 patent operates and/or is programmed, and Microsoft cannot sustain its burden of proving
21
otherwise.
22
THIRTEENTH DEFENSE
23
(Failure to Mitigate Damages)
24
25
40.
Microsoft’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by its failure to mitigate
26 damages.
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS
7
CASE NO. C 11-2402 EMC
1
FOURTEENTH DEFENSE
2
(Substantial Non-Infringing Uses)
3
4
5
41.
Any and all products or actions accused of infringement have substantial uses
that do not infringe and do not induce or contribute to the alleged infringement of the claims
6 of the ’911 Patent.
7
FIFTEENTH DEFENSE
8
(Dedication to the Public)
9
42.
Microsoft has dedicated to the public any method, system, and/or product
10
disclosed in the ’911 patent but not literally claimed therein and is therefore estopped from
11
12
claiming infringement by any such public domain method, system, and/or product.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
13
14
Answering Microsoft’s Prayer for Relief, MasterObjects denies that Microsoft is
15 entitled to any of the relief it requests, including the relief Microsoft requests in its
16 paragraphs (a) – (i), and prays that Microsoft take nothing by its Counterclaims.
17
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff MasterObjects further prays for entry of judgment:
18
A.
that the Patents-in-Suit are valid and enforceable;
B.
that Microsoft has infringed one or more claims of the Patents-in-Suit;
C.
that Microsoft account for and pay to Plaintiff all damages caused by the
19
20
21
22 infringement of the Patents-in-Suit, which by statute can be no less than a reasonable royalty;
23
24
25
D.
that this Court issue a preliminary and final injunction enjoining Microsoft, its
officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and any other person in active concert or
participation with them, from continuing the acts herein complained of, and more
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS
8
CASE NO. C 11-2402 EMC
1
particularly, that Microsoft and such other persons be permanently enjoined and restrained
2 from further infringing the instant search patent;
3
E.
that MasterObjects be granted pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the
4 damages caused to them by reason of Microsoft’s infringement of the Patents-in-Suit;
5
6
F.
that this Court require Microsoft to file with this Court, within thirty (30) days
after entry of final judgment, a written statement under oath setting forth in detail the manner
7
8
9
in which Defendant has complied with the injunction;
G.
that this be adjudged an exceptional case and that MasterObjects be
10 awarded its attorney’s fees in this action pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285;
11
H.
that this Court award MasterObjects its costs and disbursements in this
12 civil action, including reasonable attorney’s fees; and
13
I.
that MasterObjects be granted such other and further relief as the Court
14
may deem just and proper under the current circumstances.
15
16
Dated: August 16, 2011
17
Respectfully submitted,
/s/George F. Bishop__________________
SPENCER HOSIE (CA Bar No. 101777)
shosie@hosielaw.com
GEORGE F. BISHOP (CA Bar No. 89205)
gbishop@hosielaw.com
DIANE S. RICE (CA Bar No. 118303)
drice@hosielaw.com
WILLIAM P. NELSON (CA Bar No.
196091)
wnelson@hosielaw.com
HOSIE RICE LLP
600 Montgomery Street, 34th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
(415) 247-6000 Tel.
(415) 247-6001 Fax
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Attorneys for Plaintiff
MASTEROBJECTS, INC.
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS
9
CASE NO. C 11-2402 EMC
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1
2
Plaintiff, by its undersigned attorneys, demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
3 Dated: August 16, 2011
Respectfully submitted,
4
/s/ George F. Bishop___________________
SPENCER HOSIE (CA Bar No. 101777)
shosie@hosielaw.com
GEORGE F. BISHOP (CA Bar No. 89205)
gbishop@hosielaw.com
DIANE S. RICE (CA Bar No. 118303)
drice@hosielaw.com
WILLIAM P. NELSON (CA Bar No.
196091)
wnelson@hosielaw.com
HOSIE RICE LLP
600 Montgomery Street, 34th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
(415) 247-6000 Tel.
(415) 247-6001 Fax
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Attorneys for Plaintiff
MASTEROBJECTS, INC.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS
10
CASE NO. C 11-2402 EMC

The Justia Federal District Court Filings & Dockets site republishes public litigation records retrieved from the US Federal District Courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Justia.